SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
PosterThread
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

I'm with you, no worries.

One thing I believe would benefit this discussion is that if we all just relaxed a little bit. I believe we who are in Christ Jesus are all on the same side, even if our choice of manuscripts and/or theology disagrees. :-P

Let me know what you find out about those quotes, I'm interested too. But if you find them to be so, you better not go on saying that the comma was a margin note added in the 10th century. ;-)


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/10 23:25Profile









 Re:

Hi chuck.

I probably wont say it was added then.
What i will say is for you to do a short study on something called the 'false decretals'.
It is unrelated to the Comma, but may lay some foundation for you as to why I may not 'trust' everything I see and read but require 'proof' such as seeing that the majority of texts actually contain the comma.

Again, to keep from offending anyone, Ill leave it at that.

 2006/6/11 14:43









 Re:

Hi FOC:

Some time ago you indicated that you were aware of many discrepancies between the Textus Receptus and the King James, other than the "Comma" issue.

Have you had the time to prepare that list? I would be very interested in it.

God bless,

Stever :-D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

FOC wrote:
Hi chuck.

I probably wont say it was added then.
What i will say is for you to do a short study on something called the 'false decretals'.
It is unrelated to the Comma, but may lay some foundation for you as to why I may not 'trust' everything I see and read but require 'proof' such as seeing that the majority of texts actually contain the comma.

Again, to keep from offending anyone, Ill leave it at that.

 2006/6/11 18:22









 Re:

Could you give me an exact quote, stever..a post to look at.
Something seems odd in what you cliam I stated.

 2006/6/11 22:27
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

FOC, I believe this is the post that Stever was referring to:
(in specific, the bold)

Quote:

FOC wrote:
Quote:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.


Let us not forget the Johannine Comma.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

(1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.


[b]The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.[/b]

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not 'perfect'...

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.


I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs.


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/12 2:45Profile









 Re:

So I said ...

"The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text."

...exactly what I thought, you may have exaggerated my words and intents.
I never implied their were "many" additions.
Even ONE is enough to show that there is a difference...

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
FOC, I believe this is the post that Stever was referring to:
(in specific, the bold)
Quote:

FOC wrote:
Quote:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.


Let us not forget the Johannine Comma.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

(1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.


[b]The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.[/b]

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not 'perfect'...

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.


I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs.


 2006/6/12 10:08









 Re:

Quote:

FOC wrote:
So I said ...

"The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text."

...exactly what I thought, you may have exaggerated my words and intents.
I never implied their were "many" additions.
Even ONE is enough to show that there is a difference...
xxxxxxxx

Stever responds:

So your position is that because of the comma alone, that you consider to be a "mistake", that does not offer false doctrine in any way, we should throw away the King James?

What are the "additions" of it's own, other than the comma? You said "additions", not "addition".



The late Herman C. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. His conclusion, based upon the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, was:
"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better ... "
xxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever :-)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
FOC, I believe this is the post that Stever was referring to:
(in specific, the bold)
Quote:

FOC wrote:
Quote:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.


Let us not forget the Johannine Comma.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

(1)..........if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.


[b]The TR is 'based' on on the MT, but it is not exact in every way. The TR has its own 'additions' to the text.[/b]

If nothing else this shows that the TR is not 'perfect'...

Clearly Im not a KJVonly-er...as I dont believe God speaks english, nor favors english in any way.
The TR and the KJV bible are great resources, great works for the cause of the Lord.... yet not perfect.


I wouldnt trust the Minority Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

The ACTUAL Majority Texts, not the TR with its added Comma, should be the basis for our NTs.



 2006/6/12 12:33









 Re:

Quote:

So [b]your position is that[/b] because of the comma alone, that you consider to be a "mistake", that does not offer false doctrine in any way, [b]we should throw away the King James[/b]?




Heres my position.

the KJV is not "perfect" as some of you might teach...no translation in existance is 'perfect' as well they couldnt be.

Ive made my point clear enough.

If you call the TR the GMT (greek majority texts) , and the GMT DOESNT confirm that the Comma belongs...then you have one of two choices.

1) admit that the TR ISNT based on the GMT alone but on latin texts as well.
2) admit that the TR IS the GMT and has additions that dont belong

Your choice.

EITHER way, the fact is that the TR does NOT agree with the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts but the LATIN ones.

So either quit calling the TR the GMT or simply accept the fact that if it IS the GMTs, then it is not 'inerrant' as those GMTs themselves do not back the Comma.

And please, dont play off like a "s" that I added to the word "addition" makes this case any less of a problem than it is.
My adding "s" to the word "addition" does not make the TR a "perfect" tranlation in any way, shape or form.

Instead of making me explain the "s" at the end of "addition" you OUGHT to be more concerned with the actual problem here...the fact that the TR and the KJV bible has the Comma that is NOT backed by the very texts some here say it was founded on.

anything else?
If not, Id like to leave this thread now.
I have already stated that there are aspects to this issue that I will not discuss again to keep from offending catholics.

And I will ask WHERE i have ever stated to throw away the KJV.
You either retract this comment publically or I WILL report you to moderation.

STATE THE FACTS...quote what i SAY....do not put words into my mouth again !

 2006/6/12 13:22
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Stever's

Quote:
You can also purchase The Interlinear Greek-English N.T. by Berry.

You can also purchase The Interlinear Greek-English N.T. by Berry.

In both of these books you will find the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated in 1611.


This is a popular misconception. There is no definitive version of the Textus Receptus and no one knows exactly which what text lies behind the King James Version. The Textus Receptus is NOT a manuscript it is a thesis. It is a thesis I subscribe to, but it is NOT a manuscript.

Scrivener's version which is often regarded as the text 'behind the KJV' is no such thing. It is Scrivener's reconstruction of a text which he summised must underlie the KJV.

In other words Scrivener's KJV Greek text is a thoughful piece of reverse engineering. He has constructed a Greek text using the KJV. An interesting exercise and a useful one but NOT the Greek text behind the KJV.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/12 13:39Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Great to see you back Ron!

Quote:
In other words Scrivener's KJV Greek text is a thoughful piece of reverse engineering. He has constructed a Greek text using the KJV. An interesting exercise and a useful one but NOT the Greek text behind the KJV.



I didn't realize this. So we do not have a copy of the actual Greek Text from which the KJV was translated?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/6/12 14:19Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy